uh oh...might not be good news for sports management games

[PSUColonel]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/manch...143100021.html

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/manch...143100021.html

Maybe for Football Manager but OOTP is officially licenced by MLB and MLBPA. What do you think MLB/MLBPA would do right now?

[bwiese3908]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/manch...143100021.html

They don't have a chance in hell of winning that lawsuit.



They are basically suing them to make them use their official logo (trademarked) with the team name (not trademarked; can't trademark a city name or the word United). All in order to charge them later for using their official logo.


Pretty disgusting and pathetic if you ask me, even their own fans are disgusted!

[low]

They are owned by Americans, correct? That says it all.

[PSUColonel]

They want the money no doubt. But it could cause problems for customization without licenses.

In other words it could be established that team names and/or logos can’t be customized any longer.

[PSUColonel]

If the name weren’t Manchester United, there would be no argument.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

Maybe for Football Manager but OOTP is officially licenced by MLB and MLBPA. What do you think MLB/MLBPA would do right now?

Yes, but it could interfere with the customization of foreign and/or independent leagues. I’m not saying it will, but this could perhaps somehow be a precedent setting case.

I’ve always looked at it as free advertisement (especially in those cases...I can see where Man United doesn’t)

[PSUColonel]

Football Manager does have licenses from various leagues, but not all (like OOTP) and even in some cases (Man United) they don’t have certain teams within the leagues they do have licenses for).

It’s a total money grab on the part of Manchester United. FM is a game that fuels interest in the sport and Man United is so blind and money hungry it’s laughable.

[Jim Gindin]

The legal trend for this type of licensing is a concern. The US has always been easier in this respect. Europe has been more restrictive for a long time. I would not be able to include player names if FOF were based on European leagues.

I have always relied on a standard disclaimer under the federal Lanham Act. The important part of my disclaimer is that I want to make it clear that no player endorses my games. As such, I don't take away any player's right to exclusively market his likeness.

The question, then, is the extent of players' rights to publicity. I've drawn the line in two places, based on past court decisions. First, I don't include player pictures and second, when marketing images, I always use a universe where all the player names are fictional.

Until very recently, I think that's been perfectly safe. And I'm not big enough to warrant a specific test case against me. However, the recent NCAA cases have me concerned. I never included real names or the ability to import player files into TCY. It just didn't seem all that important. However, the cases are starting to get into the realm of whether the right to publicity, in fact, allows you to control any mention not directly related to reporting the result of your most recent game.

It's uncharted territory right now. I'm not interested in exploiting anyone or fighting things in courts. The biggest problem is that companies like EA have an interest in securing those rights. If they support restrictions on player names, they'll pay more for those rights if the player unions go after any company that doesn't want the rights.

For me, I see the value of the marketing. OOTP's licenses with MLB get the game in front of a lot of people. Not because of the names, but because of the endorsements. Would we do the same with the NFL? Not right away, but if the game takes off and we can afford it, why not? It's all about the marketing.

Of course, if it becomes an exclusive thing and the courts say you can't include player names if you don't go with the NFLPA, then the price will increase to the point where only an established player like EA can afford it.

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/04/98-5061.htm

This link is to the court case on which I've based my approach. Not 100% applicable in that humor has often been a specific defense that warrants special attention - and this is the reason FOF has always had a bit of code that on rare occasions makes a suspension for a player the result of something absurd - not Najeh Davenport absurd, though.

[philthepat]

Man United have a new deal with Konami... the same as Juventus who were known as 'Zebre' in Football Manager this year.

So the most likely outcome of all of this is that in FM21, Manchester United will be known as something different... like 'Man Red' haha

[Jim Gindin]

There was a dice-and-paper game I played as a kid that included teams as a list of ratings with no names. Then mailed everyone a newsletter with the same teams and only names in the list - same order, though. Only the names had all the vowels randomly replaced. It was hilarious. I remember we went around for an entire season referring to our local right fielder as "El Keluno" - and no one had a clue what we were laughing about.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

They want the money no doubt. But it could cause problems for customization without licenses.

In other words it could be established that team names and/or logos can’t be customized any longer.

That would be the main worry, yes.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by Jim Gindin

There was a dice-and-paper game I played as a kid that included teams as a list of ratings with no names. Then mailed everyone a newsletter with the same teams and only names in the list - same order, though. Only the names had all the vowels randomly replaced. It was hilarious. I remember we went around for an entire season referring to our local right fielder as "El Keluno" - and no one had a clue what we were laughing about.

Al Kaline, I presume?

[drksd4848]

Originally Posted by low

They are owned by Americans, correct? That says it all.

Yeah, isn't that the club owned by Hollywood Tom Werner and John Henry?

If so, I wouldn't,t expect anything less from those two. *Especially* Tom Werner who is pig vomit in human form.

[andyhdz]

Smaller sports sims are seen as little ants by the sports leagues. They wouldn't bother unless it's video games or it's something like FM where they rival video game sales.

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

Yeah, isn't that the club owned by Hollywood Tom Werner and John Henry?

If so, I wouldn't,t expect anything less from those two. *Especially* Tom Werner who is pig vomit in human form.

If you're talking about Manchester United, no, they don't have anything to do with Man U. They own the Liverpool Football Club, which is also one of the Big 4 in the EPL.

Manchester United is owned by Americans, however, they're owned by the Glazer family who also happens to own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the NFL. Must suck to own 2 professional sports franchises...

I don't know enough about the particular cases being discussed in this thread, but I can say that I generally support the need for Official Licensing. However, I think it's pretty stupid when a sports league, for instance, MLB, would refuse to come to some sort of financially appropriate agreement with smaller games and such. As long as the games aren't doing anything to potentially embarrass the MLB or MLBPA or cause some other type of potential harm. Licenses should always come with some sort of cost and certain assurances, but there is a huge difference between EA Sports and OOTP Developers.

[Cryomaniac]

The main issue in this case seems to be about customization. If Man United win then it would basically kill modding of FM, which could very easily have knock on effects for custom leagues in OOTP.